Home • About Us • A-Z Index • Search * Contact Us • Register • Login • Press • Shop

The Open Brand -- Problem Reporting and Interpretations System

Problem Report 1391 Details

Help Show help | Quick Search | Submit a Test Suite Support Request | Click here to view your privileges

This page provides all information on Problem Report 1391.

Report 1391 Actions

    Problem Report Number 1391
    Submitter's Classification Test Suite problem
    State Resolved
    Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD)
    Problem Resolution ID TSD.X.0673
    Raised 1970-01-01 08:00
    Updated 2003-03-13 08:00
    Published 1996-08-16 08:00
    Product Standard Internationalised System Calls and Libraries Extended (UNIX 95)
    Certification Program The Open Brand certification program
    Test Suite VSU version 4.1.0
    Test Identification CAPIbase/wait3 1
    Problem Summary TSD4U.00144 This test may fail on slow implementations that do not complete the CPU loops before the alarm expires.
    Problem Text
    fwait31 (wait3, test purpose 1) has a hardcoded timeout value which
    is sometimes insufficient on our system. The code in question
    is in fwait31.c and appears as follows:
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    SET_ALARM(MAX_TIME_TO_RUN);
    time(&time_buf1);
    tet_infoline("TEST: wait3");
    if((ret=wait3(&stat_val,0,&stats)) == -1) {
    fwerrno("wait3");
    return;
    }
    time(&time_buf2);
    CLEAR_ALARM;
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    MAX_TIME_TO_RUN is 10 seconds. The problem is that the child cannot
    always complete all of it's "cpu-crunching" tasks in the allotted
    10 seconds. Sometimes the test succeeds and sometimes it fails.

    The first operation performed by the child process is 200000
    integer arithmetic operations. The second operation is creating,
    closing and removing a file 100 times. This is the time-consuming
    operation on our system. The file may be located on a disk shared
    between different systems. The cross-system checking may take
    some additional time. Also security mechanisms beyond UNIX security
    may be in place which causes additional checks on file creations and
    deletions. What happens is that the alarm is set in the parent and
    then the parent process uses the wait3() call to await completion
    of the child process. The alarm is set for 10 seconds which means
    if the child process cannot finish the tasks in 10 seconds the
    wait3() call in the parent process is interrupted by a SIGALRM.
    Accordingly the wait3() terminates, returns a -1 and sets errno to
    EINTR: The function was interrupted by a signal.

    We feel that the alarm value should be made more liberal and possibly
    tied to the machine's performance with VSU_MACHINE_PERFORMANCE.
    That the test sometimes succeeds indicates that 10 seconds is nearly
    enough time, but more time is sometimes required.
    Test Output
    70||"SPEC1170TESTSUITE AREA wait3 25"
    10|2053 /tset/CAPIbase/fwait3/fwait31 18:30:21|TC Start, scenario ref 11
    15|2053 1.10 25|TCM Start
    400|2053 1 1 18:30:22|IC Start
    200|2053 1 18:30:22|TP Start
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 1|SPEC1170TESTSUITE CASE 1
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 2|A successful call to pid_t wait3(int *stat_loc,
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 3|options, struct rusage *resource_usage) when a
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 4|process has not changed state prior to the call
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 5|suspend the calling process until a child chang
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 6|state, place the child's resource usage in the
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 7|structure pointed to by resource_usage, and ret
    520|2053 1 134479921 1 8|process id of the child process.
    520|2053 1 148111418 1 1|PREP: fork() a child that eats up some cpu time
    520|2053 1 148111418 2 1|TEST: wait3
    520|2053 1 148111418 2 2|ERROR: wait3 failed, errno = 120(EINTR - Interr
    220|2053 1 1 18:30:33|FAIL
    410|2053 1 1 18:30:33|IC End

    Review Information

    Review Type TSMA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Recommendation No Resolution Given
    Review Response
    We agree this is a test suite deficiency in the test
    suite version(s) listed.

    Review Type SA Review
    Start Date null
    Completed null
    Status Complete
    Review Resolution Test Suite Deficiency (TSD)
    Review Conclusion
    This is an agreed Test Suite Deficiency.

    Problem Reporting System Options:

     

    Back   

Contact the Certification Authority